Автор: Битарх

Self-defense and the inhibition of violence

Voluntarist, Bitarch

An important question is how self-defense fits into the concept of the Lorenz mechanism (LM)/violence inhibition mechanism (VIM). From a rational point of view, restraining violence is a good and useful thing. But would a person with a strong LM/VIM be unable to defend themselves from an immediate threat of violence?

Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to find specific studies linking self-defense and the LM/VIM concept. In the future, I will try to study the neurophysiological aspects of self-defense in more detail and combine them with similar aspects of violence inhibition. However, I will now put forward a hypothesis about such a relationship based on the evolutionary aspects of the development of LM/VIM, which can serve as a starting point for further research.

According to Konrad Lorenz’s theory, the inhibitor is most pronounced in species whose representatives possess strong innate weaponry and do not have a statistically significant opportunity to avoid violence by fleeing. These two factors exert evolutionary pressure to strengthen the LM/VIM, as they create a threat to the survival of the species. And how did evolution handle this threat? It is not that complicated. Non-aggressive members of the population encounter intra-species violence only when they are attacked. Aggressive individuals, however, initiate violence themselves. Because of this, they end up in violent clashes much more often, and therefore die more frequently than other individuals, failing to pass their genetic material to the next generation. Thus, violence is weeded out, while the strong version of the violence-inhibiting mechanism is reinforced.

But for non-violence to be reinforced, it is necessary that the victims of violence be able to defend themselves during a direct attack using their weaponry. Otherwise, the aggressor’s life would be under no threat, and it would be the less aggressive individuals who die, leading to the opposite effect, and eventually to the extinction of the species (unless its representatives choose flight as an alternative, as hamsters do, for example, scattering after only a few mutual bites). But since we still observe heavily armed species in nature whose representatives are not prone to fleeing from intra-species aggression, and we also observe a strongly expressed LM/VIM in them, it means that victims of violence can indeed use their weaponry for self-defense against aggressors.

How might this work? An immediate threat of violence leads to a defensive reaction from the victim, which may weaken the operation of the violence inhibitor for a short period of time. As soon as the immediate threat passes, everything returns to normal. At the same time, the possibility of weakening the inhibitor to a state where the affected individual becomes capable of initiating violence themselves is excluded. Otherwise, the threat to the survival of many species would continue to exist, because the number of violent individuals in their populations would not decrease as a result of acts of violence, but might even increase, as victims would become new aggressors.

Self-defense is a permissible and evolutionarily optimal strategy for eradicating violence in a population. And humans are not exempt from this. If everything stated above is correct, then humans should also be capable of self-defense during a direct attack when there is a threat to their life, even if they have a strong version of the LM/VIM inhibitor. At the same time, they would not be capable of initiating violence outside of situations that directly threaten life, as this would relate to other, successfully inhibited types of violent behavior. I will also add that all of this points to the realism of evolutionary strategies for fighting and eradicating violence based on armed self-defense during direct attacks by various types of aggressors.

The Worst-Case Scenario Argument

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Quite often, the “worst-case scenario” argument is brought forward against the idea of a free society. It posits that we cannot abandon the state because we have something to lose; although the state may be a poor solution to our problems in many respects, it could be much worse without it, and therefore it is not worth the risk. This argument cannot be called valid because it does not consider the possibility of the opposite situation—that is, the “best-case scenario”—and moreover, it completely ignores the worst-case scenario that could occur if state power is preserved.

Absolutely any human activity and any aspiration carry both the possibility of achieving a positive result and the risk of encountering various dangers. This applies even to everyday actions, such as walking to the store or to work. Even in such elementary activity lies a small, but still present, risk of tripping on something along the way, falling and being seriously injured, or being hit by a car at a pedestrian crossing. And what can be said about something more complex than a walk?

However, the probability of the worst-case scenario occurring does not deter people from activity and aspirations if they can also lead to a best-case scenario, and especially when there exists a worst-case scenario associated with abandoning them. I think it is obvious what worst-case scenario awaits you if you refuse to go outside. Many initiatives have found realization in an attempt to avoid the worst-case scenario of inaction, even though action also brought certain risks. If every initiative were discarded solely on the basis of the presence of risks, without considering the risks of inaction, we would now live in a more backward world without many of the phenomena and technologies we are accustomed to.

Perhaps in the pursuit of achieving a free society, as in any other pursuit, certain risks are hidden. However, again, let us not forget that there is not only a worst-case but also a best-case scenario, and that there is a worst-case scenario if the status quo is maintained. By the way, history has already shown us many examples of the latter. How many state regimes have destroyed millions of lives. And can anyone really say that the worst-case scenario of a free society would be even worse than life under another Stalin, Hitler, or Pol Pot? After all, all states strive precisely for centralization and the strengthening of their power, and we can observe this process even now. Just 10-20 years ago, both in the Western world and in our post-Soviet space, there were freer orders, and now one can very easily receive punishment (up to imprisonment) even for actively defending positions, or simply making statements that do not coincide with the state agenda. Thus, it is not far to go to the level of the authoritarian communist/fascist regimes of the last century.

States have always moved, and continue to move now, toward their own worst-case scenario. This alone indicates that we should attempt to achieve a free society as an alternative capable of providing a best-case scenario. This is especially relevant in the case of the post-Soviet space. Perhaps people of the Western world have something to lose in economic terms; they have accumulated a certain wealth, the risk of losing which most likely will not justify such a pursuit in their eyes. We do not even have that. For us, a free society is like an injection of an experimental drug for a terminally ill patient—either this, or nothing will remain but to resign oneself to the rapidly deteriorating state of affairs.

The Importance of Fighting Violence

Voluntarist, Bitarch

In connection with the recent anniversary of the terrorist attacks committed by Anders Breivik in Norway, I would like to remind you of the importance of fighting violence. Although such a tragic event is not a global catastrophe, it is frightening to imagine what future Breiviks might present to us, especially considering what fruits of scientific and technical progress could end up in their hands. Perhaps it will be another shooting, which is very bad, but it will most likely not affect you personally. Or perhaps such a person will decide to use some high-tech means to cause as much harm to people as possible—for example, by constructing a dirty bomb, releasing a previously unknown strain of a very dangerous and deadly virus (a scenario I described in the material “The Reality of the Viral Threat“), or using some other extremely destructive means unknown to us now.

But the capacity to commit violence is not the norm for a human being. On the contrary, 98% of people experience disgust at least toward brutal violence, and all brutal violence is committed by no more than 2% of people. This is because a natural part of human nature is the violence inhibition mechanism (Lorenz’s mechanism (LM) according to Konrad Lorenz’s theory, or VIM according to James Blair’s model). A person with a strong version of LM/VIM will never be able to commit violence. It is committed only by those who suffer from a pathology of the violence inhibitor. Violence is a pathological state. Therefore, it must be fought in an appropriate manner.

If violent tendencies were noticed to a sufficient extent in childhood—when a person is unlikely to be able to make a decision to intentionally hide them until the time they can organize a terrorist attack—or if mass testing for the congenital variant of LM/VIM were practiced in society, both in childhood and when conducting relationships with people in adult life, and if gene therapy treatment were then applied to those in whom the LM/VIM pathology was discovered, many terrorist attacks, as well as much violence in general, could have been avoided.

Perhaps in the past we did not have a sufficient scientific and technical base for this. But now the time has come; biotechnology and gene therapy are developing at a rapid pace. And now it is not too late to start fighting violence to avoid a catastrophic scenario in the future and finally completely rid human society of pathological violence. Does anyone really want the appearance of a new Breivik, and one who is even more heavily armed?

Innate Non-Aggression Morality: Relation to Moral Realism and Ethical Intuitionism

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Not long ago, I considered the question of morality in the context of the concept of the violence inhibition mechanism (VIM)—a cognitive mechanism that inhibits violent behavior in humans. A healthy person who does not suffer from VIM dysfunction is incapable of committing acts of violence against other people. The manifestation of direct brutal violence is successfully inhibited (restrained) in more than 98% of people. The capacity to commit violence is an aberration and a pathology, not the norm of human nature.

Within this topic, the question of a human’s ability to distinguish between transgressions of a moral and a social (conventional) nature (moral/conventional distinction) is of particular interest. Moral transgressions consist of causing harm to a person, whereas social transgressions consist of violating established norms. A beating, for example, would certainly be a moral transgression, while a student leaving the classroom without the teacher’s permission is merely a transgression of a conventional nature.

When a person encounters experiences that demonstrate moral transgressions, distress signals from their victims, such as a sad facial expression or crying, lead to the activation of the VIM and the emergence of a rejection response. The person develops an association between the moral transgression, the distress signals, and the subsequent rejection; as a result, they become capable of understanding and identifying moral transgressions by analyzing certain actions.

Such an association does not arise in the case of social transgressions, as they do not initially lead to the activation of the VIM in a person. Consequently, people with VIM dysfunction, such as psychopaths, cannot understand the difference between moral and social transgressions, because from a neurophysiological point of view, it truly does not exist for them—they perceive these transgressions identically; more precisely, moral transgressions are perceived by them in the same way as social ones.

The fact that psychopaths and people with violent tendencies are indeed incapable of understanding this distinction is a fact confirmed by a vast amount of evidence and research. Let us also recall the fact that violence is a deviation from the norm of natural human behavior. In fact, the morality of non-aggression is biologically predetermined for humans, which we learned by conducting research into human nature. Thus, this morality can be attributed to moral realism.

But we will not stop there, because it is worth mentioning one more thing—a person with a functioning VIM (which, as previously stated, is the norm of human nature) will become capable of recognizing transgressions of a moral nature, and therefore, a corresponding morality of non-aggression will develop in them absolutely regardless of whether they know anything about their own nature at all. If they are unfamiliar with the concept of the VIM and the notion of a moral transgression, the morality of non-aggression will be perceived by them as something intuitive, self-evident. For the vast majority of people, this intuitive understanding will coincide, and on the issue of violence, they will converge on a single position that committing acts of violence is unacceptable, without conducting any research and without attempting to form any logical conclusions (violent views will originate only from the violent minority). Such a universal intuitive understanding of morality pertains to moral (or ethical) intuitionism.

As we can see, the innate morality of non-aggression is simultaneously an objective fact of human nature, pertaining to moral realism, and an intuitively understood norm, pertaining to ethical intuitionism. Of course, we can see that the latter stems from the former—that is, a person’s intuitive understanding stems from their objective biological nature. Therefore, the innate morality of non-aggression simply unites these approaches to morality, simultaneously corresponding to both of them and deriving one from the other.

Violence and Cultural Influence

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Based on the concept we are considering regarding the inhibitor of intraspecific violence (the Lorenz mechanism (LM), as we call it in view of the corresponding theory of Konrad Lorenz, as well as the violence inhibition mechanism (VIM) according to James Blair’s model), we find that a human’s ability to commit violence against another human is a deviation consisting of a malfunction of the innate LM/VIM. Thus, violent offenders are people suffering from a genetic and neurophysiological pathology [1]. This concept can be countered by the argument that the level of violence in human society, from the very emergence of humans to the present day, has decreased at rates completely incomparable to the speed at which traits are fixed in a population as a result of natural biological evolution. Additionally, different levels of violence are observed under different social orders. I will not dispute the validity of such assertions; however, by providing two arguments, I will prove that they do not refute the LM/VIM concept.

The first thing to understand is that a person with a weak or dysfunctional version of the LM/VIM does not necessarily have to commit violence. A good upbringing, the absence of circumstances that provoke violence, and the presence of circumstances that deter it, while not eliminating the risk completely, reduce it to a certain extent. Combine this with the fact that violence is committed by a minority of people. Military evidence shows that only up to 2% of people experience no resistance to killing (and war is a highly provoking circumstance for violence). An analysis of crime in the Russian Federation determined that in the worst possible scenario (and in reality, it may be better), on average, only one new violent offender committing a violent crime no less severe than battery is reported per 695 people per year.

If environmental circumstances change such that, for example, instead of one person per 695 people, two people begin to commit violence per year, then the level of violence in society will increase by at least twofold, and most likely much more, since those who have previously committed violence may begin to do so more frequently. The consequences would be significant. However, violence would still originate from an overwhelming minority of people, so observing such changes does not refute the LM/VIM concept.

Let us now turn to the evolutionary argument. Under natural conditions, biological evolution is indeed a very slow process. However, it can be accelerated through artificial selection. Cultural influence can also lead to such selection, as it artificially alters the social and physical environment in which genetic selection occurs. This is called dual inheritance or gene-culture coevolution.

A classic example is the development of lactose tolerance, which resulted from the development of dairy farming that occurred only approximately 5,000 years ago. Another example: between 800 and 1700, the culture of the Ashkenazi Jewish ethnic group practiced limiting employment to professions requiring a high level of intelligence, which created selective pressure in favor of people possessing it. Combined with the genetic isolation of the ethnic group, this presumably led to high IQ scores, as well as a number of hereditary genetic diseases among its representatives. Furthermore, as a result of territorial expansion in the second half of the last millennium, mixed races appeared. And even the consequences of urbanization and industrialization, which began 200-300 years ago, are already leading to measurable genetic changes [2].

Similarly, cultural influence can lead to the strengthening of the LM/VIM. The growing cultural unacceptability of violence creates selective pressure in favor of less violent people, while violent offenders are filtered out more and more. Culture does indeed influence the level of violence in society, but this does not contradict, and may even fit into, the LM/VIM concept.

Sources:

  1. https://panarchy.ru/2021/07/12/анализ-внутривидового-насилия-как-яв/;
  2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210012/.

Those who do not make it in time will be late

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Violence is a major problem leading to many negative externalities (including catastrophic ones), as well as to the maintenance of a violent hierarchy of dominance in society (which only further exacerbates the externalities of violence). That is why the fight against violence will soon become one of the leading directions in the development of society. And whoever solves the problem of violence will have a chance to significantly elevate the reputation and popularity of their cultural and economic agenda.

There are those who do not consider violence a major problem, and if this violence takes the form of state coercive force or serves the achievement of certain goals in general, then in their opinion, it becomes a beneficial and useful tool. Such a position is typically characteristic of conservatives, although it is not limited to them, and concerns in principle all supporters of violence as a tool for achieving goals, including those who support the existence of a monopolistic state power. Often, even classical liberals and supporters of a free market economy have nothing against the use of force.

But no matter how much they deny the negative aspects of violence, it would be foolish not to understand what would happen if someone else took on the task of eradicating it. Suppose that the supporters of such an idea, instead of cooperating with conservatives or marketeers who see no point in it, go to a hypothetical Bill Gates and manage to convince him they are right. By financing this initiative and ultimately eradicating violence, he would gain giant moral support from society, since for most people, violence is the greatest evil. Being a left-liberal and having acquired enormous authority, it would be enough for him to simply voice his opinion for people to listen. If he says that gay people cannot be refused the right to bake cakes, or that business must be socially responsible and donate a significant part of its income for the benefit of society, then it will happen, because the majority will be ready to follow the direction of such an authority.

Many certainly do not like such a scenario, but it is entirely possible. And if someone does not want this scenario to become a reality, they should support the idea of fighting violence by all possible means. The problem of violence will be solved in any case, either with the help of a hypothetical conservative, or without their participation. But in the second case, their socio-economic agenda will lose a significant part of its support in favor of the views of those who participate in solving the problem of violence. So I advise you to hurry in this matter and start promoting the ideas of non-violence now, regardless of who holds what views.

Sexual selection against violence using dating sites

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Recently, some American dating sites came up with an interesting idea regarding how to encourage people to get vaccinated against coronavirus. They decided to add the ability to indicate one’s vaccination status in their profile, while providing certain bonuses to those who do so as early as possible. Accordingly, when searching for a partner on such sites, it is now possible to find out if they are vaccinated, which for many may serve as an indicator of responsibility and an understanding of the danger of the uncontrolled spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This, essentially, will stimulate dating site users to get vaccinated.

Of course, this idea may seem contradictory to some. Firstly, it could be argued that this is merely an attempt to control people, restrict their freedom, and apply a slave label. But specifically in the case of coronavirus, saying so would be an exaggeration—this is a temporary problem, and once it is solved and society begins to treat covid exactly like seasonal flu, such a status will cease to be relevant and there will be no demand for it. Secondly, the effectiveness of such an initiative itself can be questioned—there is no reason to believe that many people take coronavirus vaccination seriously, meaning they are indifferent to it. Moreover, some view it negatively.

But this idea could be used in the fight against violence by combining it with the concept of sexual selection. Fighting violence would become quite easy if people prone to it were denied relationships and, as a consequence, the ability to procreate. If such an idea gains public popularity, the number of rapists and the level of violence will be drastically reduced in the next generation. Along with the promotion of eradicating violence, a status indicating a propensity for violence could be used.

For example, a person could take certain tests that confirm their non-violent nature (more precisely, the presence of a strong version of the violence-inhibiting Lorenz mechanism) and use the results to establish a corresponding status in their profile. And if gene therapy against violence emerges, it would be possible to create a status with the same meaning as the coronavirus vaccination status on American dating sites. This would be especially useful for people who exhibited violent behavior in the past, as confirmation that they will never return to violence again.

There is certainly no reason to doubt the necessity and utility of such an initiative, as it is another way to fight violence, which leads to various negative consequences, including catastrophic ones. The effectiveness of this method should also be high, as most people will not want to deal with (and even less so have close relationships with) someone if they know in advance that this person is definitely prone to violence or likely to be prone to it, because they did not bother to confirm their non-violence while others did. Thus, everyone who wants to start a relationship, a family, and have children will have an incentive to confirm their non-violence or fight their own violent tendencies. And those people who have such tendencies but do not consider them a problem will lose this opportunity and will not be able to pass on a violent legacy.

Source: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/05/covid-19-vaccinations-are-sparking-14-more-matches-on-okcupid/

Gene therapy for the brain is no longer science fiction

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Based on Konrad Lorenz’s theory of the inhibitor of intraspecific violence (Lorenz mechanism or LM), James Blair’s model of the violence inhibition mechanism (VIM), as well as a multitude of supporting evidence, including neurophysiological and genetic data, it can be confidently stated that the ability of some people to commit violence against other people is the result of a pathological impairment in the functioning of the innate violence inhibitor (LM/VIM). And since this is a pathology, it must be combated, as with any other pathology, namely through its treatment [1].

Since the impairment in the functioning of the LM/VIM is of genetic origin, treatment requires gene therapy intervention. At the neurophysiological level, specific areas of the brain are responsible for the functioning of this mechanism, which means we need to perform gene therapy on brain cells. However, the possibility of conducting such gene therapy is questioned. There is also an opinion that gene therapy cannot correct neurophysiological impairments. However, all these doubts can be easily dispelled, which I will now do.

In the past, gene therapy on brain cells was impossible because the viral vector with genetic material could not cross the blood-brain barrier—the protective filter between the circulatory and nervous systems. However, in 2003, a group of researchers found a solution to this problem, which involves using a vector small enough to be able to cross this barrier [2]. Later, a wide variety of tools for performing gene therapy on brain cells appeared, using different types of vectors and the genetic material they transport [3].

Fine, gene therapy can be performed on brain cells. But can it cure neurophysiological impairments? Let’s look at a practical example. There is a hereditary genetic disease called “Aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase deficiency,” the symptoms of which include: mental retardation, inability to fully control the body, decreased muscle tone, seizures, and many others. It is caused by a mutation of the DDC gene, leading to a deficiency of key neurotransmitters (dopamine and serotonin).

However, quite recently (the corresponding study was published on July 12, 2021), specialists developed a gene therapy to treat this disease. A drug with a viral vector carrying the corrected version of the gene is injected directly into the patient’s midbrain, where it distributes through the tissues, and they gradually become capable of producing the missing proteins. This gene therapy has proven its safety and efficacy. Seven patients aged four to nine years, within 18 months after the injection, were freed from seizures, began trying to speak and smile, and two were even able to walk with assistance, which was considered fundamentally impossible for such a diagnosis [4].

Of course, at the moment, gene therapy is a complex and expensive technology that requires further development. However, there are absolutely no reasons to believe that the treatment of neurophysiological impairments and the restoration of nervous system functions (including the brain) is a fundamentally unsolvable task. Current research, on the contrary, proves the possibility of this. This means that the argument about the impossibility of treating LM/VIM dysfunction, based on such a claim, is incorrect.

Sources:

  1. Voluntarist (2021). Analysis of intraspecific violence as a phenomenon of human nature: norm or deviation?
  2. Ananthaswamy, A. (2003). Undercover genes slip into the brain;
  3. Ingusci, S. et al (2019). Gene Therapy Tools for Brain Diseases;
  4. Pearson, T. S. et al (2021). Gene therapy for aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase deficiency by MR-guided direct delivery of AAV2-AADC to midbrain dopaminergic neurons.

Suppressing supporters of violence using the methods that successfully crushed homophobes in the West

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Despite the fact that only a tiny percentage of people are actually capable of committing brutal violence, politically, supporters of non-violence ideas are currently in the minority. The majority, at least passively, consider the use of force justified in the implementation of state coercion, and some people even actively resort to using this tool of force in the pursuit of their goals. And how can the ideas of non-violence be promoted in such a position?

To do this, let us consider how some other ideas that were very unpopular in society were promoted, for example, the ideas of the LGBT movement (it does not matter how you personally feel about this; moreover, if you believe that movements of this kind must be stopped by resorting to violent measures, then you are simply a violent person—realize this fact and reconsider your outlook on life). Of course, there are relatively few representatives of this movement in society, which means they simply would not have had the chance to defeat all their enemies at once. But that is not necessary; it is not essential to deal with everyone at once, it is enough to choose one goal. Suppose a specific business began to implement a policy of discrimination against LGBT representatives, or some person spoke about them in an extremely negative key. By gathering together, the representatives of the movement have enough strength to organize a campaign of harassment against a single subject. Of course, this subject, faced with strong condemnation, will begin to lose their reputation; if it is a business, its income will be jeopardized. Seeing this, other opponents of the ideas of this movement will not want to risk their money and reputation, and therefore will make certain concessions. This is how the LGBT movement managed to promote its cultural agenda and achieve recognition in many countries—in fact, in most developed countries, where half a century ago homosexuals were afraid to even walk down the street holding hands.

A similar strategy could be used in the promotion of the ideas of non-violence. All supporters of violence cannot be defeated at once, especially considering that a significant part of society, albeit passively, is still on their side (moreover, they themselves are biologically incapable of initiating violence, as most of the population have a strong version of the violence-inhibiting mechanism, but this does not prevent them from having certain views and morally supporting other people who are more prone to violence). But, again, there is no need to fight everyone all at once. It is enough to choose one subject who advocates for violence and organize a campaign of harassment against them, as a result of which they will suffer certain losses. Other subjects, seeing this, will make concessions to us.

One of the concrete implementations of this strategy could be the conclusion of non-violence contracts. For example, deciding to do business with a certain organization or person, one can demand the inclusion of a clause in the contract stating that in the event of disputed situations, the parties cannot resort to violent measures of influence, i.e., cannot turn to state judicial and law enforcement structures. Instead, the resolution of the conflict must be carried out exclusively within the framework of non-violent reputational and financial influence. If the other party agrees to such a condition, it will create a positive precedent that will greatly help in the further popularization of non-violence ideas. If they refuse, then they can be condemned as a supporter of violence according to the model described above.

Thus, even with a small number of active supporters of non-violence ideas, it is possible to effectively deal with a certain number of supporters of violence. And those remaining will simply decide to make concessions in order not to lose their business or avoid ending up in social isolation. Over time, the agenda of non-violence will become recognized and generally accepted, which is what we strive for!

If you invest in the business, invest in the fight against violence as well

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Doing business and any financial activity are always associated with certain risks. Many will first think of risks leading to the loss of invested funds, however, that is not the issue we are interested in. We will consider the risk that violence, up to and including liquidation, may be applied to a person engaged in such activity. I think you have heard stories about how some businessmen were “taken to the forest” by their more violent and gangster-like competitors in the market. Frequently, a government may eliminate a person for “unacceptable” economic activity. An illustrative example is the recent story of the death of John McAfee, who had some problems with paying taxes and activities related to cryptocurrency operations, and who, as he claimed before his death, was threatened by representatives of the US authorities.

Of course, some will say that problems can be avoided by strictly playing by the rules of the state power and stronger market agents. But these rules are established unilaterally and can be changed at any moment to destroy your activity or make its conduct impossible. The mere fact of conducting some activity may be unacceptable to those capable of committing violence against you. In the best case, your business will be stopped due to the threat of violence from ordinary or stationary (“state”) gangsters, resulting in large financial losses. In the worst case, you will simply become another person who “committed suicide.”

Anyone engaged in any economic activity, especially if it involves running a business or investing in certain assets, finds it beneficial and necessary to invest in the fight against violence. Only by eradicating violence in human society can its risks be eliminated and one can finally peacefully attend to their affairs without fearing tomorrow. Investing in the fight against violence is clearly worth it to simultaneously preserve both your activity and your life!